Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, last week we officially received the letter. It took nine months to write a letter of six pages, but finally, we received the letter. Today is the day at the European Parliament and today’s signal is that we are ready, we can start and, hopefully, after the vote we can say we are united and we stay together in these negotiations.

First of all, I would like to thank Guy Verhofstadt for his work in preparing our resolution. The message is clear on the procedure: first, divorce and, second, the future treaty. Then we underline what should be the atmosphere in the negotiations; we want to have a fair, constructive atmosphere built on trust. Then we have defined our priorities regarding citizenship: do not play with the legal uncertainty of citizens. We are underlining that, for us, the Northern Ireland question is a decisive one: avoid a hard border in Ireland.

Then we have to talk about money. The top priorities are defined. Finally, we hope that London respects that the EU27 will continue. The Rome Declaration is clear and we have to talk about the future in our Union.

The point is, from our point of view, a decisive difference. It is a very fundamental question: what does leave mean? What does it mean to leave the European Union? For example, on the question of security, I heard last week that Theresa May said that they want to stay in Europol. Europol is a European Agency – it is the European Union who is organising Europol – but they want to stay.

So does leave mean no further access to Europol and to the Schengen Information System, or does leave mean to stay in them? Then we talk about the research union. Cambridge, Edinburgh, Paris and Milan are working closely together. So does this mean that with leave there will be no further cooperation, because at the moment the European Union is financing this?

Then there is the single market. Trade is positive. Does leave mean no more access to the single market? Does leave mean no more cooperation? I feel that London thinks they will find the perfect deal, and that means they take the positive points and they leave the negative points. I have to clarify that this will not happen. Cherry-picking will not happen. A state outside the European Union cannot have the same, or better, conditions than a state inside this European Union.

Helga Stevens, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, today, I hope, begins the process of shaping a better future for the peoples of Europe. The peoples whose jobs, businesses, economy and security all depend on us to take the EU in the right direction. A new direction. The UK leaving must not be a missed opportunity to create positive change. That is why the ECR Group adopted last week its vision of a reformed and decentralised European Union. I can recommend it to you.

Britain is an island, not a boat. It will remain where it is, it will remain one of our most important economic, political and security partners. The United Kingdom and the European Union are friends, not enemies. This should not be a nasty break-up but the beginning of a deep and special partnership between long-standing allies.

We need to start work on a comprehensive deal right now, a deal that looks at everything: cooperation on security, trade, education, research, transport and, yes, money. Everything from the start. There is no time to lose.

If we do anything less, history will judge us harshly as having been small and petty when the challenges of our age required us to be bold and visionary. Mr Verhofstadt, you spent a great deal of time in your campaign for president of the Parliament distancing yourself from the backroom deals of the past. Yet, once again, the pleas for openness and transparency feel like the same old empty promises – promises which those outside of Brussels are increasingly frustrated with.

The negotiation and process of this resolution have sought to exclude the opinions of some political groups and Members in this Parliament. When you do that, you do not just exclude the voices of those Members, but also the voices of their electorates. Mr Verhofstadt, no one is asking you to agree with everyone, but you could at least listen to what they have to say.

That is not to say that we do not agree with anything in the joint motion. We do. We agree, for example, that it is essential that the rights of EU citizens in the UK and of UK citizens in the EU are dealt with quickly and fairly. But we do not share other key points.

We believe the European Parliament should seek to support the EU negotiator not make life more difficult by making excessive demands in advance. That just looks like the same old tired tactics, which undermine the credibility of this Chamber. The three-year limit on transitional arrangement seems arbitrary. We might want different lengths for different issues. We deeply regret that all the work prepared by Parliament’s committees was just brushed aside.

Mr President, fellow Members, my hope is that the EU will emerge from Brexit renewed and able to prevent the departure of other Member States. The next two years should be about building the faith of the peoples of Europe in the decisions we are making. If the EU is to come back stronger and if we really want to win back the confidence lost by our citizens, then this is not only the moment to determine how we will work with the UK in the future, but also how we can get the EU back on track.

I call on all colleagues to listen to the recent statements by several European leaders who show that there are alternatives to ever more Europe. We need to follow the path to a decentralised confederal Europe. There simply is no support for more centralising Euro-federalism. With or without Britain, we need a new direction for Europe.

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I have the feeling that it was a very sad moment on Wednesday of last week when the British ambassador gave his letter to President Tusk. That was my feeling anyway: a very sad moment.

It is true, naturally, that the relationship between Britain and Europe was never an easy relationship, let us recognise that. It was never a love affair and certainly not a question of wild passion. I think it was a little bit like a marriage of convenience, if I can use that term.

It was already clear, dear colleagues, from the beginning. In the 1950s Britain decided against membership of the European Coal and Steel Community. Attlee and Labour did not want it, and it was Churchill and the Tories who were in favour, it is good to recall this. And in 1955 at the start of the Common Market, Britain walked away from the negotiating table.

In the early years of the Union it was the British Prime Minister Macmillan who looked at the continent with nothing less than suspicion. What were they cooking up there in Brussels, were they really discussing coal and steel and customs union, or were they also talking politics in Brussels, plotting on foreign policy? Oh, God forbid, defence matters even!

So British Prime Minister Macmillan wrote to his foreign minister, and, I quote, I have the quote here: ‘For the first time since Napoleon the major continental powers are united in a positive economic grouping, but considerable political aspects’, and to his own surprise, Macmillan had to admit this new experiment, and I quote further, ‘was not directed against Britain.’ So when Britain finally joined the European Union in 1973 after, as we all know, several blockades by General de Gaulle, the headlines were festive. You have to read all the British press in 1973, it was a great day for Britain to join the European Union.

Let us be honest about this, it was only a short honeymoon, as we know, because Margaret Thatcher asked for her money back and her successor John Major called the euro, and I quote again, ‘a currency as strange as a rain dance, with the same impotence’. Well, I have to tell you that the pound slipping against the euro, as we see today was not exactly what Major expected at that moment.

But all the rest, let us be honest with each other, is history. Perhaps let us recognise that it was maybe impossible to unite Great Britain with the Continent, and naive maybe to reconcile the legal system of Napoleon with the common law of the British Empire, and perhaps it was never meant to be.

(Applause)

But, and this is important – and I hope you are applauding this also – our predecessors should never be blamed for having tried, because it is important in politics, as it is in life, to try new partnerships, new horizons, to reach out to the other, to the other side of the channel. I am also convinced and 100% sure about one thing: that one day or another, dear colleagues, there will be a young man or a young woman who will try again, who will lead Britain into the European family once again.

(Applause)

And a young generation that will see Brexit for what it really is: a catfight in the Conservative party that got out of hand. A loss of time, a waste of energy, and I think, a stupidity.

Although I continue to think that Brexit is a sad and regrettable event, I also believe it is important to remember something. Remember what Britain and Europe in these more than 40 years have achieved together. It is true, we may not have had the most passionate relationship, but it was not a failure either, not for Europe, and certainly not for Britain and the British.

Let us not forget, Britain entered the Union as the sick man of Europe, and thanks to the single market, came out the other side. Europe also made Britain punch above its weight in terms of geopolitics, as in the heyday of the British Empire. And we, from all sides, must pay tribute to Britain, to Britain’s immense contributions as a staunch and unmatched defender of free markets and civil liberties. And thank you for that because as a Liberal, I will miss that in the future.

Colleagues, within a few weeks we will start the process of separation. And I think, Mr Juncker and Mr Barnier, the goal must be to have a new and stable relationship and a deep and comprehensive partnership and association between the UK and the EU that certainly will be very different, as we all know, from membership.

In this new venture let us always remember one thing. Our common bonds, our common culture, our common and shared values, our joint heritage, our history. And let us never forget that together we in fact belong to the same great European civilisation, from the Atlantic port of Bristol, I go as far as to the banks of the mighty river Volga; but maybe that is a little too far for the moment.

But let us be honest, and this will be my final point. Brexit is not only about Brexit. Brexit has to be also about our capacity for a rebirth of our European project, because let us recognise that Brexit did not happen by accident. Even though since Brexit I see what I call a change for the good in the mood of the public, let us not fool ourselves: Europe is not yet rescued and Europe has not yet recovered from the crisis.

Europe is still in need of change, I think in need of radical change: change towards a real Union, an effective Union based on values and based on the real interests of our citizens. And a Union also – and I want to conclude with this – that stands up against autocrats. Autocrats will close down their universities, to give one example.

(Applause)

Autocrats will throw journalists into jail, as is happening today. Autocrats will make corruption their trademark. And yesterday, as we all have seen, beyond any humanity, autocrats again bombed innocent women and children with chemical weapons in Syria, to give the nastiest example.

So in these negotiations which will have to start in the coming weeks, let us never forget why our founding fathers – British and other Europeans alike – launched this European project. There are three words: freedom, justice and peace – these are three great things that are worth fighting for.

Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Prime Minister May, you inherited a situation you did not create, yet you had a choice. And by choosing the hardest form of Brexit you chose the most extreme interpretation of the referendum. In doing so, you encouraged all those on the continent as well as in the UK from the fringes of the political landscape and the benches of your own governments who have made grandstanding and threatening their brand of politics.

On the one hand, we have to all those who call for making Britain the world champion of social and tax dumping, or even for starting a war with Spain. On the other hand, we have those who say we should punish the United Kingdom. Have the last 70 years not told them anything?

Mrs May, by your own choice you dug yourself a hole of contradictions. How can you have a hard Brexit without having a hard border in Ireland? How can you – to use your own words – have the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU while you take the UK out of the single market, which allows precisely that?

But above all, how can you reconcile a hard Brexit with your own stated desire of a more united UK and our claim to represent every person in the United Kingdom, including the large number of people, especially the young generation who voted in favour of remaining in the European Union?

Resolving those contradictions, so as to minimise damage to our citizens must be the objective of the negotiations to come. If we want common sense and the general interest to prevail we must ignore those who shout and posture. I agree with you, Mrs May, when you say you want to build a stronger, fairer, better Britain. Achieving stronger, fairer and better societies is a goal that many share in this Chamber.

Delivering this requires us to face the Trumps and the Putins of this world, to tackle climate change, to fight terrorism and organised crime, to find common responses to the global migration challenge, to curb corporate power. And who can believe, who seriously can believe when EU citizens altogether represent 7% of the global population on 2% of the land, that any – I say any – of our Member States, including the largest is better equipped to faces challenges on its own?

Mrs May, like it or not, we are in this together. Taking back control, being recognised as global players, requires all Europeans, including Britons, to act together. There is no such thing as absolute sovereignty. In the 21st century we can only reconquer sovereignty for democracies by sharing it.

Mrs May, you want to build a Britain your children and grandchildren are proud to call home. Let me remind you that, as we speak, many of your own citizens are proud to call not just Britain but Europe home. Let us not let them down.

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, it may have taken nine months – a pretty full gestation – but be in no doubt that last Wednesday was a great historic day when the United Kingdom announced that we were going to become an independent, self-governing, democratic nation once again, an act that has been cheered by hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

We have had a little history lesson this morning from Mr Verhofstadt, but he made one mistake. In 1973, sir, we did not join the European Union; we joined the European Economic Community. Had the British people known that it was the intention to get political and take away our ability to govern ourselves, we never would have done so.

I am sorry to say that the response to the triggering of Article 50 has been all too predictable. Already you have made a series of demands that are not just unreasonable, but, in some cases, clearly impossible for Britain to comply with. You began by telling us that we have to pay a bill: a cool GBP 52 billion, a figure that has clearly been plucked out of the air, which is effectively a form of ransom demand. What you could have acknowledged is that we put over GBP 200 billion net into this project. We are actually shareholders in this building and the rest of the assets and really you should be making us an offer we cannot refuse, to go.

The ever-charming Mr Verhofstadt, Parliament’s chief negotiator, in his resolution that we are to vote on later today, tells us that we cannot discuss potential trade deals with anybody else in the world until we have left the European Union. That has no basis in Treaty law whatsoever. It is rather like saying you cannot guarantee yourself a dwelling for when you leave prison and I trust the British Government will completely ignore you.

I suspect that Mr Tusk, who is not with us today, is still crying. He looked pretty tearful, did he not, after the British Ambassador delivered the letter last week? He tells us in his memorandum that any future trade deal must ensure that the United Kingdom is not allowed to have a competitive advantage. This is all impossible. Add to that the hypocrisy of saying, on the one hand, that the EU will negotiate as one, and clause 22 of the Tusk document which says that the Spanish can have a total veto over the whole trade deal if they are not happy with the sovereignty of Gibraltar.

We believe in national self-determination. Your aim and ambition is to destroy nation state democracy. Gibraltar is clearly a deal-breaker on current terms. With these demands, you have shown yourselves to be vindictive, to be nasty, and all I can say is thank goodness we are leaving. You are behaving like the mafia. You think we are a hostage, we are not, we are free to go, and 85... I know and I do understand ...

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I do understand national sensitivities. I will change it to gangsters. All right? And that is how we are being treated. We are being given a ransom note.

(Noisy interjections from the floor)

What must be very difficult for all of you to get into your minds is that there is a bigger world out there than the European Union. 85% of the global economy is outside the European Union. If you wish to have no deal, if you wish to force us to walk away from the table, it is not us that will be hurt. Do you know, we do not have to buy German motor cars, we do not have to drink French wine, we do not have to eat Belgian chocolate. There are a lot of other people that will give that to us.

A return to tariffs will risk the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people living in the European Union, and yet what you are saying is you want to put the interests of the European Union above that of your citizens and your companies. If you continue with that route it won’t just be the United Kingdom that triggers Article 50. There will be many more to come.

(Applause from the EFDD Group)

Marcel de Graaff, on behalf of the ENF Group. – Mr President, I send my congratulations to Ms Theresa May, to the United Kingdom and the British people. I say to them that you have regained your freedom and your sovereignty by invoking Article 50 and leaving the European Union. You have now regained the opportunity to flourish as a nation, to control your borders, to make their own laws and to make your own trade deals.

The bureaucrats from the EU will try to make you pay about EUR 60 billion. They will try to force you to comply with all EU directives and standards, to accept hundreds of thousands of migrants, and even to accept the rulings of the European Court of Justice. They will try to open an Irish road for migrants to the UK.

I say to you that you should not give in to these demands. You are far better off outside the EU, a union which is going the way of more and more isolation. They are calling you a friend here. A friend, but they want to punish you and make you bleed.

Let me therefore remind you of the famous words of Sir Winston Churchill: ‘we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender’. God bless the United Kingdom.

Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, as Brexit negotiations begin, it is a joy to watch the towering masters in the art of EU diplomacy in full flow here today. Those like Mr Weber, whose bellicose, threatening and theatrical words no doubt entertain this Chamber but are like a pen with no point in the negotiating rooms.

He said on his recent tour of the British media that politicians who fought for Brexit were allowed to grow up in a free Europe, and that the UK should now pay more. Well, Mr Weber, may I remind you that the freedom that you say you promote came at a mighty cost to Britain. It came in the blood and sacrifice of millions of Britons those who, like my grandfather, when asked unhesitatingly fought in the sands of Africa so Europe can be free.

It came in the 120 billion it cost Britain to fight a German dictator, it came in the 5 trillion Britain contributed to NATO to help build a shield of freedom around Europe from communism. It came on the 500 billion or more we have contributed to the EU and the billions more we spend each day more than we receive.

Mr Weber, on Radio 4 you asked ‘Mrs May, please tell me what leaving the EU means?’ Well, I will tell you. It means we are leaving the European Union that has forgotten the costs and sacrifices Britons freely gave to ensure you are free to exercise your diplomacy of the defeated in this Chamber of the forgetful.

Jean-Claude Juncker,President of the Commission. – Mr President, there is no better place to start the debate on our negotiations with the United Kingdom than in the place where they are supposed to end in less than two years’ time. In a defining and challenging moment for our Union, the role of this Parliament is more important than ever. You must scrutinise and validate the final agreement. No negotiation, no separation without representation.

This is the reason that from the very start I pushed for this House to have a full and active role in the process. I would like to thank and congratulate my friend Guy Verhofstadt and all parties involved for the speed and clarity of the resolution that you are voting on today.

I will not give a detailed response today on each point but, given the cross-party support in this House, it is clear that we are on the same lines when it comes to the big issues. That is absolutely crucial because this is the time to stay united, this is the time to stay undivided.

During these negotiations, every one of our institutions and every one of our 27 Member States must be singing from the same hymn sheet. The stronger we are as 27, the stronger we will be in the negotiations.

You already know our chief negotiator Michel Barnier very well, but over the course of the next two years you will become even more familiar with him. I have to say, before the start of the negotiations that he is doing a good job. Sometimes, not very often, I take wrong decisions but – don’t laugh – but one of the best decisions I have taken since I have been President of the Commission was the appointment of Michel Barnier as our chief negotiator.

(Applause)

It is normal that your Parliament will have a say on the final deal, but more importantly, you are the checks and balances during the negotiations themselves. This is fundamentally a constitutional question for our Union: a third country cannot have the same benefits as a Member State. This Parliament must, and will, ensure that this reality is fully upheld over the course of the next two years.

We will negotiate in friendship and openness, not in a hostile mood, with a country that has brought so much to our Union, and will remain close to our hearts long after they have left. But this is now the time for reason, rather than emotion.

The third condition is doing things in the right order and putting them into perspective. The UK letter makes clear that the UK Government will push for parallel negotiations on withdrawal and on future relations. This is a very risky approach. To succeed, we need, on the contrary, to devote the first phase of negotiations exclusively to reaching an agreement on the principles of the exit. We are not proposing this to be tactical or create difficulties for the UK. On the contrary, it is an essential condition to maximise our chances of reaching an agreement together within two years, which is very short. It is also our best chance, as Manfred Weber mentioned very clearly, to build trust before proceeding to the second phase of negotiations. This second phase will be devoted to scoping our future relations and to discussing the necessary transitory arrangements. To put it differently, the sooner we agree on the principles of an orderly withdrawal, the sooner we can prepare our future relations in trade: obviously, a free and fair trade agreement, a level playing field, but also in security and defence. It is on the basis of these three conditions – unity, lifting uncertainty, and phasing of negotiations – that we can succeed, and your resolution will set the tone. My hope is that the European Parliament makes these three conditions its own.

Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – Mr President, with this resolution, the European Parliament takes a clear strong and balanced position on the negotiations with the United Kingdom. We regret the decision to leave the EU, but we respect it. We also know, and will not forget, that a large number of UK citizens voted to remain because they understand that the European project is the only way to protect and to recover our sovereignty in a globalised world.

Our guiding principle in the whole process will be to protect the rights and interests of the citizens we directly represent. We want to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU, avoiding a no—deal scenario, which would have negative consequences for all, but in particular for the United Kingdom. For this reason, we call on the UK Government to agree as soon as possible on the principles of the withdrawal provisions in order to allow us to begin talks on the main features of the future relationships and on the necessary transitional arrangements. We fully support the sequencing set out by Michel Barnier. In this context, Parliament will pay particular attention to the need to protect the rights of the EU 27 citizens living or having lived in the UK and vice versa, because people – as President Juncker said – are not negotiating chips. We will also ensure that the financial settlement will cover all the commitments and liabilities, and we will insist on the absolute need to safeguard the Northern Ireland peace process and to avoid a hardening of the border in Ireland.

The future relationship between the EU and the UK should be a close partnership, based on balanced and comprehensive agreement, but it cannot provide similar benefits to those enjoyed by the Union Member States. The European Parliament will not accept any trade—off between security and economy, nor any cherry—picking. We will want an agreement which is fully in line with our standards on the environment, the fight against tax evasion and the protection of social rights. I am confident that the vote will show that this Parliament is united in line with this principle, that we back the EU negotiator and that we will honour our constitutional obligations, contributing to that unity of the EU, to a successful negotiation and to the defence of our common values and projects.

Ashley Fox (ECR). – Mr President, last week Prime Minister May triggered Article 50. In doing so she gave effect to the democratic decision of the British people to leave the European Union.

I want Members to see today as a beginning and not an end. It is the start of a new relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Although we will be leaving the EU, we want to forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies in Europe.

The negotiations that follow will be difficult at times, and you will sometimes hear an angry voice. I hope that colleagues here will focus on the outcome we seek and not the process we undertake, because we all need a good agreement, rather than a good fight.

This Parliament has a role to play in ensuring we protect our citizens. I want the rights of all EU citizens in the UK and all British citizens in the EU to be guaranteed. I want Britain’s borders with the EU to be as invisible as possible, to allow as much trade as possible. I want us to respect the right of self-determination. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is not part of these negotiations.

My group was disappointed that Mr Verhofstadt felt he could only consult on the draft text with a few close political friends. We also regret that he ignored so much good work by the Parliament’s committees. Perhaps it was inconvenient. We hope in future we can work with you in the same good faith and full transparency that you request in your motion.

As we look to the future, it is in the interests of all our citizens that we reach a comprehensive agreement between Britain and the EU. We see no reason to delay any aspect of any of these talks. So let us go forward together and reach that deep and special partnership that will benefit all our nations.

Catherine Bearder (ALDE). – Mr President, the lies and blatant mistruths of the referendum campaign are crumbling before our eyes. They told us food prices would not rise. They have. They told us businesses would not move abroad. They are. They told us we were scaremongering. We were not. Sixteen million Brits did not say they wanted to leave the European family. Those who did will not be fooled again by false promises from nationalists

This month of May the British people will send a message to Mrs May in local elections and the Westminster seat of Manchester Gorton. That message reads loud and clear: you lied to us. We are angry, and we want our country back. It belongs inside the European Union.

As a Liberal Democrat, I will continue to fight against Brexit, and to give the people a final say on the deal. I am proud of this House, uniting with a positive but firm resolution. It is fair, it is just, and it is very European. And if the deal goes badly, the British people will welcome the chance to revoke Brexit and Article 50, and vote to remain.

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS Vice-President

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, today in this Chamber the influence of the late Martin McGuinness is present. He met with virtually every signatory of the joint resolution, and he asked three things from this House: one, that you preserve the Good Friday Agreement in all its part; two, that there would be no hardening of the Irish border; and three, that the unique circumstances and special status of Ireland would be supported.

In his memory, we thank you for this. This is why we associate ourselves with this resolution. We feel that the European Parliament is a partner to the people of the North of Ireland and particularly those living across the partitioned border areas, north and south. No other MEP understands the disaster of partition better than MEP Matt Carthy.

Despite the fact that we support the joint resolution, we all have to recognise that this is not the Europe we want, or that the people need. We need an open and critical debate on the future of Europe, something that the resolution also calls for. We need to engage the public in this debate.

Together we can shape a better Europe, a more social Europe, a democratic Europe, a Europe of equals. We have done our part, now it is the turn of the European Council meeting on 29 April. To the European Council I say: it is over to you. Enda Kenny, Taoiseach, your day has come. Now it is your time to stand up for the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts. Irish citizens are depending on you. You must be the voice of the people, north and south.

It is clear from this resolution that Ireland has friends in Europe. And I want to end with a quote from Manfred Weber, somebody I do not usually quote. He said that ‘if the UK tries to endanger the Good Friday Agreement we will not give our support to an agreement on Brexit’.

Neither will we, and neither should the Taoiseach. So harness that support, Enda, and stand up for Ireland.

Josep-Maria Terricabras (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, to this point almost everything has been said on Brexit, even if nothing has been done so far. I will just underline four ideas that seem to me of the utmost importance on the subject.

Firstly, the resolution on which this Parliament voted today sets the framework for any future negotiation. Five parliamentary groups have, happily, presented it. Secondly, both sides have to concentrate on fair and discreet negotiations, conducted in a spirit of good faith and political rigour. Thirdly, we will have to learn to divorce, since we have not been able to learn to live better together. That means we have to prepare a future that can make it possible to combine distance with collaboration. Fourthly, and finally, as Chair of the EFA Group, I wish to express my conviction that both parts will be able to give fair treatment not just to the territories that have expressed their will to remain: Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, but also to Wales.

We have a long way in front of us. Let’s honour each other at least with two virtues: loyalty and courage.

Paul Nuttall (EFDD). – Madam President, I think what we have witnessed over the past week has been the unedifying spectacle of posturing and veiled threats, from the ludicrous suggestion that we will be saddled with a GBP 50 billion divorce bill (although we are a net contributor to the EU budget) to the claim that no trade will be negotiated until the end of the Article 50 process. This, I guarantee, would cause immense damage to the economies of the European Union and would result in putting many of your citizens out of work. It is what we call, in the UK, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

However, the most offensive position that you have taken is the proposal that Spain will have the right to veto any Brexit deal over the issue of Gibraltar. I want to make it clear in this Chamber today that the people of Gibraltar are proudly British. In 2002, 99% of Gibraltarians voted in a referendum against shared sovereignty with Spain, and the wishes of the people should be upheld. I do, however, have a solution to prevent Gibraltar being used as a pawn in Brexit negotiations and, indeed, end Spanish claims once and for all. Make Gibraltar a fully integrated part of the UK; give her and our other overseas territories their own Member of Parliament. Give Gibraltar real influence and a voice in Westminster and send a clear message that Gibraltar is not for sale.

In this area, we, the UK, can learn from our continental cousins, because the French give representation to their overseas territories, and I propose that we should too. I have been calling for this for many, many years, and with the unique opportunities that Brexit has given us, I believe it is an idea whose time has come.

Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Madam President, I know what a divorce is like. I came through one and you will too. Both parties seek to damage each other and the kids and blame each other. You know, the kids and the bank accounts get damaged. But my ex-partner: you will recover. Your hate will lessen, but you will need a bit of counselling along the way.

Jean-Claude: get off the booze! Donald is in denial. He is in depression, trying to claim Gibraltar as his own, as so often happens when you are splitting the divorce assets. Then you appoint a crack team of negotiators, only to find you have got Mrs Malmström in there, and that she is not a trade negotiator at all. She is a sociology lecturer. Guy, you sent in your army, you sent in your barmy army for the one Spanish Armada that is left to you to retake Gibraltar. But it didn’t happen. And Northern Ireland – the only way that the Good Friday peace agreement is going to fail is if you start bombing us again.

And one party thinks you owe them a bonus and an income for life just because they are injured. But our bill to you is GBP one trillion of contributions. That has been the amount of money that we have paid into this place. You failed us, so we want that back.

So it is not going very well. But d’you know what, we don’t want to damage you, we don’t want to damage the kids and your finances. So let’s complete a free trade agreement, because if not, our friends at the World Trade Organization are looking jolly nice and very attractive, and I am not seeking an affair in this divorce but a partner for life, and I think that is where we are heading.

Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, the triggering of Article 50 was a good day for democracy in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister upheld the democratic result of the referendum, when the UK voted decisively to leave the European Union last June. However, I respect that for many in this place there is genuine disappointment, maybe some sadness and even some anger. In the negotiation to come, on all sides emotion must be tempered by a practical and positive willingness to find common ground. We have an opportunity to write a new chapter on cooperation in trade, security and prosperity.

Whilst I have many difficulties with the text – not least on phasing, on finance, on trade, and on Gibraltar – I am pleased that this resolution does recognise Northern Ireland’s unique position in respect of the land border with the Republic of Ireland. Both the United Kingdom and Irish Governments have said there will be no return to a hard border. The Council’s draft guidelines pledge a flexible and imaginative approach. All of these commitments are welcome.

However, any solution must also respect that Northern Ireland will be an integral part of an independent United Kingdom. I hear – and appreciate – support for the peace process in this House. The greatest support for the process will come from stable government, and my party pledges to work hard to ensure that in this, and in the outcome of Brexit, we will represent the best interests of Northern Ireland.

Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, in my one minute I will concentrate on how Brexit affects the island of Ireland. The words Ireland and Northern Ireland appear eight times in the document we are discussing today, and that in itself indicates the importance that the European Parliament attaches to the unique position and special circumstances confronting the island of Ireland. It is crucial to safeguard peace and, therefore, to preserve the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts. We insist on the absolute need to ensure continuity and stability of the Northern Ireland peace process and avoid the re-establishment of a hard border. Those are not my words; those words are written in the document we will agree today.

So we start with good intent, but over the next few months all of us will have to come forward with workable solutions that will make a reality of those fine words. We share a border of almost 500 kilometres with Northern Ireland. We must maintain our common travel area, otherwise the dislocation could be catastrophic for our small island. Finally, I want to agree with Michel Barnier that we should ensure a free and fair trade agreement with a level playing field. That must also be the outcome between the Republic and Northern Ireland.

Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I campaigned for the European Union as a peace project and a beacon for democracy and human rights. The journey towards Brexit is proving how powerful the Union has been in this civilising mission and how flimsy these basic freedoms seem without European support.

The vote for Brexit has been hijacked to build an ugly coalition to undermine our civilised society. Within a week of triggering Article 50, we have a senior Conservative threatening war against a European country. This is sadly symbolic of the loss of commitment to peace and to basic standards of diplomacy, to say nothing of friendship and loyalty. I represent the people of Gibraltar and I will fight for their right to self—determination. They value being British citizens – as I do – because Britain is a country of decency and democracy. What value a British passport if the Prime Minister can change fundamental legislation without reference to Parliament? What value a proud history if our future allies will be despots? What value international respect if it is squandered for narrow economic advantage?

Diane James (NI). – Madam President, the statements today by Europhile party political leaders were everything I had anticipated and feared: total misrepresentation of facts and issues by the Socialists and the EPP Group, and misleading interpretation of history, UK economics and EU evolution by the Liberal Democrats, all allowed to pass uncorrected. This morning has seen political theatre, histrionics and political opportunism at full throttle by the Europhiles, and all because the United Kingdom has chosen to leave the European Union.

Well, I suggest we get real and start adopting grown-up politics because there is a serious leg of negotiations ahead of us and we do not need to see yet more Project Threat, Revenge and Penalty from the likes of Mr Juncker, Mr Barnier and Mr Verhofstadt. That is not helpful, and all it does is pander to a press which at the moment is misrepresenting both the EU position and the United Kingdom position. I do not feel that is helpful. So please can I ask everybody to calm down and be calm, and get on with it.

Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Madam President, the process of Brexit has formally started and is testing political and technical capacities on both sides to get a timely and – as Michel Barnier said – successful agreement. The challenges the Union is now facing in the context of the UK withdrawal are well understood and also shared by the Union institutions. The European Parliament is, and will be, at the forefront of the process and has shown a high level of political openness and cooperation, but also unity, in helping to define the Union’s path for the upcoming negotiations.

We cannot but welcome the constructive approach set out in the letter notifying the UK’s intention to withdraw and setting out the approach to the negotiations, but the truth is that the really hard choices are yet to come, and for many citizens transparent negotiations will be a learning process. We want to ensure legal certainty and stability and to avoid disruption for citizens and businesses across the Union through an orderly and phased withdrawal, in line with Union law and with a view to mitigating economic, political and emotional – Mr Annemans – damage. But this damage is already a fact of life. European institutions are united on basic guiding principles and values, as well as on ensuring the protection of the Union’s autonomy and legal order. All this sets the right path for cooperative and, above all, principled negotiations based on good faith.

For the European Parliament the principles are clear. First and foremost, we must defend and promote the interests of the citizens of the Union whom we represent, and safeguard the integrity and the coherence of the constitutional framework of the Union. These are the key building blocks for the negotiation and also the absolute boundaries on the basis of which the European Parliament will assess the outcome of the withdrawal negotiations through the consent procedure. We must be clear that abandoning membership cannot lead to a status quo ante and to unrealistic expectations.

Let me finish just by expressing my conviction that the concerns of those who were against abandoning membership should not remain unaddressed.

Sergei Stanishev (S&D). – Madam President, the time for regrets is over. The process of the UK leaving the European Union is under way. What we need is sober heads, good faith, but also a very clear mandate from the European institutions. This is what this House is doing today.

First and foremost, we should aim to overcome the uncertainty regarding the lives of both EU citizens on the island and UK citizens in the European Union. Their lives should not be used as a bargaining chip, as has been underlined many times. There is also the issue of security cooperation, which is beneficial for both sides in this process.

Second, trading freely would be in everyone’s interest, but the UK cannot have a better deal outside the Union and the single market than it has currently. In any future arrangement, the UK will have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Third, last but not least, we must also urgently launch debates on how the EU of 27 will adjust its budget, its policies and its institutions after UK withdrawal, in order to respond to the expectations for our citizens.

Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I was elected to represent the Welsh national interest, and that is what I will continue to do. The people of Wales have the democratic right to decide on their own future, and that includes the kind of EU withdrawal that takes place and the way that it affects our nation.

The devolved administrations of the UK, including Wales, should be involved at every stage of the negotiations. I do not accept that the interests of Wales can be ignored by the UK Government, but that is exactly what is happening, despite the publication of the white paper ‘Securing Wales’ Future,’ produced by Plaid Cymru and the Welsh government. It is a comprehensive and constructive plan, which includes our continuing participation in the single market, which is a top priority for our economy and our communities.

I see Wales’ potential as a successful nation. We have a lot to contribute to this process and to build in the future, and our voice must be heard.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, talk of Brexit and divorce reminds me of the song ‘50 ways to leave your lover’. You know the one: ‘Slip out the back, Jack; Hop on the bus, Gus’ and now we have ‘Say day-day, May’. I wish it was that simple but this divorce, after 44 years and with no precedent, looks like it is going to be tough, and possibly rough. For that reason we need calm heads, clear minds and creative thinking, and with Michel Barnier at the helm, I think we have the package.

Where Ireland is concerned, we are very grateful to all groups in the European Parliament for taking the concerns of our Taoiseach, our government and my colleagues on board. The special circumstances of Ireland are referenced, and this sends out a powerful message to the citizens of Ireland and of Europe that when one country, no matter how small, is adversely affected, disproportionately threatened, the European Union will stand in solidarity behind them. And boy are we threatened, both economically and politically. But with this solidarity we can be confident that the terms of the Good Friday Agreement will be observed to the letter, that there will not be, cannot be and must not be a return to a hard border and that the prosperity of Ireland, especially our exporting sector, must not and cannot and will not be sacrificed on the high altar of expediency or pride.

Common sense not nonsense, pragmatism not pride must prevail. This is the best way to leave your lover.

Glenis Willmott (S&D). – Madam President, last June I toured my constituency, day in and day out, making clear my concerns about the dangers of Britain leaving the EU – dangers for our economy and British businesses, and the threat to the jobs they create; dangers for British workers, as the Tory right clamour to use Brexit to spark a bonfire of EU workers’ rights; dangers for British and EU citizens, with our cooperation on issues like counter-terrorism and security linked to our EU membership.

We lost the EU referendum, and while it saddens me to say it, Britain is leaving the EU – but those dangers are still there. In all our countries, there are families for whom the Brexit vote has created worrying uncertainty – millions of people concerned about their rights to live and work in countries they have made home. Citizens across Europe are now at risk of the economic consequences of a bad deal – or even worse, no deal at all – and people in all 28 countries will suffer if Brexit means competition on low wages, lax environmental standards and scaled back rights for workers and consumers. These are the people we represent, and these are the people to whom this Parliament must give a voice.

It will not always be easy to take the responsible path in the coming months, but it is what we must do. There are some in this House and beyond who are actively hoping to plunge Europe and Britain into chaos through a disorderly no-deal Brexit. Why? Because they have no answers to the questions that constructive negotiations will bring. So let us work for a constructive deal. And to those leave campaigners who now sit in the British cabinet or on the benches opposite – there is still one of them there, I can see – you won. Now take responsibility for the promises you made. As we all consider how we conduct ourselves over the coming weeks, let us remember that we are here representing people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the outcome. Serious times call for a serious response.

Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, as a Scottish European I have long wondered how I would feel today. The answer is, I am heartbroken, not for myself, but for the people I serve, for future generations. Scotland will not be silent within this process, as our rights are taken away by an administration we do not support, by a vote that we clearly rejected and a process that is demonstrably against our interests.

While being heartbroken, I am also angry. I am angry at this process, and I am angry at the way the UK is representing itself, doing a bad thing badly. Mrs May and Nigel Farage do not speak for Scotland, do not speak for me, and do not speak for 48% of the UK’s population. The UK is not one bloc, much as Mrs May would like it to be; the UK is a complicated set of various interests, all of which are better reflected in this resolution than in anything the UK Government has put forward to date.

Scotland will not be silent in this process, and Scotland’s top priority, in the words of our First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is to keep our citizens safe. Scotland is your home, you are welcome here. I appreciate that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed but please, colleagues, let us make our citizens feel safe, our citizens from the UK in other countries, and citizens from other nations in ours. Let’s deal with that first, let’s deal with that fast and let’s deal with it now.

James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, I do not want to dwell on the past today, but rather to look to the future. We all need to come together with a plan that works for everyone and build a good foundation for our future relationships with the European Union. For the sake of all our people, the United Kingdom and the European Union need to work together as strong allies and close friends when we leave.

Europe has been a strong friend to Northern Ireland and gave us strong support during our darkest days. I am confident that friendship will continue. I welcome the fact that all sides want a frictionless border. However, we all know that finding a solution will require a lot of innovative thinking. Any solution must not diminish Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of the United Kingdom, as enshrined in the principle of consent in the Belfast Agreement.

And can I make it clear to you, Mr Barnier, that I will not accept a hard border. I will also not accept an internal UK border. I would also urge EU leaders not to heed those who are merely using Brexit as an excuse to break up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Let me also say to you very clearly – and I hope your are listening, Mr Barnier, and not twiddling with your telephone as you seem to be doing; I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that you actually listen to the speech – that Dublin does not speak for Belfast. We will take care of ourselves.

You are not taking back your country. You are trying to destroy this continent, and you do not care how much your citizens and our citizens will suffer from it. But listen carefully: we will not let you succeed. We will continue to fight for a Europe based on solidarity and justice, a Europe where facts expose the lies, a Europe that protects its citizens and does not leave them with the prospect of an uncertain and gloomy future. And I hope that one day the UK will become a real, full member of this European Union.

Adina-Ioana Vălean (PPE). – Madam President, while I join my voice with those who express their regrets to see the United Kingdom leaving the EU, I respect the will of the British people. I still believe they were wrong.

It is a difficult moment, as we have never faced such a complex challenge to undo the deep ties that we have founded in our common history. However, let’s be pragmatic, as British people like to be.

As chairwoman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I want to send a strong message both to the EU and UK. We are bound to work together constructively in the best interest of our citizens, to ensure a clean and safe environment and a high level of public health and food security, and to pursue our common commitment to the climate change.

We will need to ensure a rapid transfer of our European Medicines Agency as soon as is practical, as is said in the resolution, because we have to make sure to avoid uncertainty regarding its future and limit the loss of skilled staff and their vital expertise. So we have to cooperate together in good spirit. It makes no sense believing that environmental and health issues stop at the borders.

György Schöpflin (PPE). – Madam President, we can be certain that this resolution will not be popular in Brexit circles. There will definitely be those who will denounce it as impertinent, or worse. There are many in the United Kingdom who see leaving the European Union as a kind of liberation. It can take quite a while for illusions to dissipate. For the time being, the launching of Article 50 has brought with it an early silly season. Bizarre things are being said and, no doubt, will continue to be said. This can be irritating, even provocative, but that is no reason for us to follow suit. On the contrary, we can stay calm and pursue negotiations with the same professionalism and commitment that is reflected in this resolution. After all, the UK will always have a relationship with Europe. Our aim is, and should be, to frame the long term: to ensure that the future is a positive sum game.

Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Madam President, I would like to put forward our position and show it with three quotes from Shakespeare, a great British and European writer.

First, our position, our attitude as committed pro-Europeans, is very well described in Hamlet when Horatio describes the expression of the father of Hamlet: ‘a countenance more in sorrow than in anger’ – that will be our attitude in our negotiation.

Next, I would like to give a piece of advice to our British colleagues with another quote, because you should be very aware of what your bard Shakespeare has said: ‘we know what we are, but know not what we may be’.

Finally, I would like to answer Mr Farage with a quote from Shakespeare that is probably a fake quote, which is very, very appropriate to someone that is a post-truth politician: ‘Love me or hate me, both are in my favour. If you love me, I'll always be in your heart. If you hate me, I'll always be in your mind’.

David Martin (S&D). – Madam President, in September 2014 I voted to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom union and in June 2016 I voted to keep the UK in the European Union. Today, I face the reality that Brexit will remove my country from one union and leave the other union hanging by a thread. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. Edinburgh, a city I have represented in this House for 33 years, voted 75%-25% to remain in the European Union. The overwhelming feeling in Scotland is that we are being dragged out of the European Union against our will, a feeling only compounded by Ms May’s determination to pursue a hard Brexit for which she has no mandate.

The resolution we are about to vote on recognises this fact, but provides no solution. The Council document calls for a flexible and imaginative solution to be found for Ireland. I, of course, agree, but I think the same should also apply to Scotland. The Scottish Government has put forward a bespoke proposal for Scotland, which I think deserves serious attention in this House. In conclusion, I want to say that if the UK does not show flexibility in these talks it will not only be the UK leaving the European Union, but the UK will not exist any longer.

Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, I believe in the Europe of today. I believe in our European project, a project that is based on the belief that together we are stronger and we do things better. That is why it makes me sad if you, Mr Farage and your friends, are likening this project to a prison. Let me remind you that 48% of the voters in the referendum did not share this this view and many millions did not actually participate.

I also heard Mr Fox – if I am not mistaken – saying that he is calling for a close and deep partnership and for invisible borders. If this is what you are calling for, then welcome back into Europe. Welcome back into the European Union because this is what we are aiming for.

Instead of that, you are, in practice, calling for the negotiation of a similar agreement to the ones we have with the US, Korea or Canada. If this is so, please do not be surprised that in this negotiation we will represent the interest of 27 countries, like we did in negotiations with Canada, the US or Korea. This should come as no surprise to you.

Esther de Lange (PPE). – Madam President, in a couple of weeks I will take my six-year-old son to London for the first time; he will see the Cenotaph and I will tell him about the bravery of those men who fought in two European wars and to whom we will be eternally grateful. But he will not understand because, thank God, he has never known war. Although, not too far away from here – and you can laugh – but not too far away from here children his age and younger are dying in the poisonous clouds of Idlib, the same clouds that we saw over Flanders Fields a century ago.

It is for those generations of young Europeans, those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, that the remaining 27 Member States need to stand united and together, and work out a reformed and stronger European Union. It is for those young generations of Brits that we need a fair deal and a continued relationship with the United Kingdom, because they did not vote to leave.

Let us, dear colleagues, politicians of this very old continent, show the young people in Britain and in Europe alike that Europe is not a place of hate, of pettiness or of revenge, but that we can learn the lessons of the past and reshape a future in which the negotiating table will always, always prevail over outright conflict.

Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Madam President, Brexit will be the most difficult, costly and unnecessary divorce in history. In the coming months and years, we can expect the EU 27 and the UK Government to end up in any number of catfights, but let me be crystal clear: whatever the cost, whatever the hassle, whatever the differences of opinions, this Parliament will serve the citizens of Europe. Period. We are their directly elected voice. We will be their strongest defender, their best advocate in this, and their ally. This goes for EU citizens and for UK citizens. We will not allow the Brexiters’ broken promises, half-truths and even lies to harm the citizens of the UK and EU any more than they have already done.

To the citizens of the 27 remaining Member States, I say we will never allow a post—Brexit UK to undermine your rights and conditions by competing in a race to the bottom. To the citizens of the UK, I say that we will continue to fight for your best interests, and we will keep a seat for you at our table.

Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – Madam President, Romanian by nationality and historian by profession, I am fascinated by your great leader, Winston Churchill. But today I have to confess that I don’t know what he would say about Brexit or how he would judge the Brexiters. This is a real question mark.

When it comes to the status of the European citizens in the UK, the negotiations must be based on the principles of reciprocity and full equality among EU citizens. This means that we need to make sure that our citizens who currently live and work in the UK can continue to freely do so without any discrimination against them or between them based on their nationality. Under such circumstances, we can accept, as the EU, to grant the same status to the UK citizens in our Member States.

Equally important is the issue of security, defence and counterterrorism, where the EU and the UK are mutually fundamental. This is where we are reminded by the recent terrorist attack in London. Both the EU and the UK need to be wise and pragmatic. This is too important an issue to leave a security gap for those who threaten our common values and our challenges, equally the security of our citizens.

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I keep hearing what a positive project the European Union is. Article 8 of your beloved Treaty says ‘the Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries’ in a spirit of ‘good neighbourliness’. Well I get that, I understand that, I am with that, that makes a lot of sense. So why, if that is the case, would Mr Tusk have written Clause 22 in his Memorandum giving the Spanish a veto over the future of Gibraltar when everyone knows that the Spanish are antagonistic towards the wishes of the people of the Rock? And why, Monsieur Barnier, in a spirit of ‘good neighbourliness’, would you have plucked this bizarre figure of GBP 52 billion out of the air that you say is our final settlement payment?

Remember one thing. From the moment we voted Brexit to the moment we leave, we will have put GBP 30 billion net into this European Union, and you want another 50. It just does not work. For any negotiation in life to work both sides stake out a position. Both sides ask for more than they realistically expect to get. I understand that, but you have gone so far with this that it is just impossible for us to see any accommodation.

I think there needs to be give and take on both sides, and I think if you gave on the money and you gave on Gibraltar, then what I would like to see the United Kingdom Government doing is saying there are 3.3 million EU citizens living in the UK, they all came to Britain legally and we will now unilaterally guarantee their rights for the future. Both sides need to give on this for any sensible deal to come out of it. We can walk away without a deal, it will hurt European workers and European companies more than us, but surely it makes sense for both of us to come to a sensible accommodation.

Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, if we want to get to a sensible accommodation, Mr Farage’s speech is precisely the kind of nonsense that we should just ignore. I just want to say that Brexit is a lose-lose game. I would have much preferred for us to stay together. L’Union fait la force, we say in Belgium, and that remains the case today. But there is one thing where I believe no compromise is possible, and that is the only thing that really annoyed me in Mrs May’s letter. It concerns security cooperation. Security cooperation is an area where we cannot let lose-lose logic prevail. It is in the interest of the safety and security of all our citizens, British or otherwise, to cooperate deeply in matters of security, and what we cannot accept is that any other kind of consideration – trade, commercial, whatever – stands in the way. There is no trade-off here. It concerns the lives of men and women.

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I find it fantastic that Mr Farage is using Article 217 of the Treaty on the Association Agreement. Now that he is leaving, he starts to read the Treaty and to find the Treaty so good. It is fantastic to see this enormous positive development, if I may say so. That said, what is clear in this debate is ‘let us put the citizens first’, and it does not make any difference whether they are EU citizens or UK citizens. We will be firm, we need to be firm to defend the unity and the interest of the European Union towards the UK authorities, but my appeal here in the House today is to be open, positive and generous towards UK citizens, because many of them, millions of them, want to keep their relationship, their link, their identity on the European level. And last but not least, my appeal also to the House is that, when we vote within a few minutes, we have a huge majority and almost unity in this House. It is key to do that, to have a united European Parliament, together with the EU negotiator and with the European Council, and I hope for a strong vote within a few moments.

Roberts Zīle, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, ‘divorce’, ‘sadness’, ‘electricity and heating bills’, ‘foolishness’, ‘disruption of transport links’, etc. ‘We will only speak about the future relationships when we settle on accounts’. ‘We are the champions, but on the other side are the losers’. ‘We will not leave them any single cherry of the cake’. That is a summary of the statements made both in the Chamber today and also in the media.

I would like to ask colleagues to calm down. Does anybody believe that in these negotiations there will be winners when it comes to citizens’ rights issues? Indeed, how successful can we call an arrangement where part of the success is achieved by discriminating against the citizens of another EU nation, or take businesses that are the backbone of economies? Do we really want to extend uncertainties for the next five or so years?

It is possible within the next two years to settle the past accounts and work on the comprehensive framework for the future relationships. This allows for it, business will wait for it, and in the end the European people want it. So good luck to you in the negotiations.

Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, I would like to raise a point of order under Article 11.2 about this morning’s debate. Calling other colleagues members of the mafia or gangsters does not show mutual respect, does not represent the views of the vast majority of the British people, and is not the view of the British Prime Minister, who wants to remain friends, allies and partners.

James Carver (EFDD). – Mr President, there has been a lot of confusion in this House this morning, talking about British aggression over Gibraltar. Can I just remind colleagues across Parliament that it was actually Spain that sent one of their warships into Gibraltarian waters.